Pussy Riot are some of the most powerfully effective artist-dissidents of our era, so why does our news depict them as punkette Manic Pixie little girls lost? Michael Shean deconstructs:
The members of Pussy Riot have done something remarkable in modern Russia, both in their actions before their arrest and in their statements during trial and conviction: they have straight up called President Putin on this political floor show, and declared bluntly and loudly that the Emperor has no clothes.
What I did not expect was for the complete and utter marginalization of the three performers by the Western media. Perhaps it is naive of me to think that at least some major news outlets west of Moscow would try and handle the situation in a mature and factual manner, but from the very start these women have been pushed into the comfortable, sexualized box of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Their looks and fashion have been analyzed and discussed more than their politics; the youngest member is described as being a “sultry sex symbol” with “Angelina Jolie lips”. They are consistently called ‘girls’ and ‘punkettes’ despite the fact that they’re all in their twenties, two of them have children, and Pussy Riot is not a punk band but a kind of performance art outfit that just happens to have punk overtones.
Take this article from the New York Times, which focuses on the style of Pussy Riot. Or any of the other ones which talk about the members of the outfit in detail. Do you see the same treatment of male dissidents? Do you hear about Julian Assange’s looks? Or a dissection of the decor at Oswaldo Paya’s funeral, and the oh so lovely outfits the Cuban police wore as they arrested dissidents attending without charge? Chances are the answer is no, because that’s completely fucking second to the point.
